Canon 100mm f/2.8L IS USM macro or Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX OS HSM macro?

swiftparkour94

TPF Noob!
Joined
Sep 14, 2012
Messages
632
Reaction score
16
Can others edit my Photos
Photos NOT OK to edit
The Sigma is cheaper and weather sealed (I think). Is it sharper and does it render beautiful colors? When I get around to saving for a macro lens, I'll really want to know if the siggy is the way to go with a price tag like that
 
I did not know that the Sigma is weather seal.
I have the old Canon EF 100mm macro (non-USM) lens. Then I bought the Sigma 105mm (like new with everything). Optically is about the same to me. But build quality is not as good as my old Canon and I do not like that finish too much. So I sold it back for what I got it for.

If I am going to buy a macro lens around 100mm now, most likely it will be the the regular EF 100mm f/2.8 macro USM which I can use the tripod collar. Of course the L as well but it cost more money and I do not think the extra money will bring anything additional to my photos. When I shoot insects, I shoot hand held or with monopod, so IS is not really needed.

Edit: I also like Canon EF 100mm usm and the L version lens because they use internal focus mechanism so that the lens will not extend when focus. My lens or the Sigma will extend all the way when shooting with 1:1 ratio.
 
Last edited:
Don't forget about the Tokina 100mm f2.8 macro. Sweet lens.
 
I had the Sigma for a week and it was horrible. I did not like it at all. I ended up getting the Canon of coarse. Love it.
 
The 100L is an awesome all-around lens. It is weather sealed, and it produces great images. I actually just sold mine to pay for some car repairs, but I would recommend it to anyone.
 
Image quality wise there is very very little to tell macro lenses apart. The true macro prime lenses on the market are all very sharp very well made optic setups and honestly what differences there are simply tend to be very small. The biggest real difference would likely be the nature of the aperture blades and how they render background bright spots (even then most of the time this is a null issue - and often comes down more to taste than to a perfect "better or worse" situation).

Features - eg AF speed, IS, OS, focusing modes, internal focusing, teleconverter compatibility etc.... as well as focal length, working distance and price are going to be more major points for consideration. Generally speaking Canon retains an edge on AF speed, though even then macro lenses tend to be a bit slower than regular ones in the AF department. Further the OS in the canon lens is a bit more tuned than some others for macro work, though I've yet to see anyone who's really compared the OS to the IS in the 100mm lenses.
The biggest potential difference to my mind might be that newer canon DSLRs do have a new "macro" AF mode which is auto enabled when any canon macro lens is connected to the camera and is used with continuous AF mode and is focused into its macro distances (you don't set anything special on the camera, it just kicks in on its own). This AF mode aims to counter the backward/forward motions that people have when taking handheld macro photos and, from what I've read, it does this decently well - certainly a step up from older AF setups which simply could not really cope at all.
 
I had the Sigma for a week and it was horrible. I did not like it at all. I ended up getting the Canon of coarse. Love it.

What specifically didn't you like about the Sigma lens?
 
I had the Sigma for a week and it was horrible. I did not like it at all. I ended up getting the Canon of coarse. Love it.

What specifically didn't you like about the Sigma lens?

Was it that heavy yellow cast that Sigmas have? The one that CANNOT be white-balanced away???
 
Dao said:
I did not know that the Sigma is weather seal.
I have the old Canon EF 100mm macro (non-USM) lens. Then I bought the Sigma 105mm (like new with everything). Optically is about the same to me. But build quality is not as good as my old Canon and I do not like that finish too much. So I sold it back for what I got it for.

If I am going to buy a macro lens around 100mm now, most likely it will be the the regular EF 100mm f/2.8 macro USM which I can use the tripod collar. Of course the L as well but it cost more money and I do not think the extra money will bring anything additional to my photos. When I shoot insects, I shoot hand held or with monopod, so IS is not really needed.

Edit: I also like Canon EF 100mm usm and the L version lens because they use internal focus mechanism so that the lens will not extend when focus. My lens or the Sigma will extend all the way when shooting with 1:1 ratio.

Ok, thanks! One thing though...how would IS not be needed handheld when shooting macro? You must have dead steady hands
 
Overread said:
Image quality wise there is very very little to tell macro lenses apart. The true macro prime lenses on the market are all very sharp very well made optic setups and honestly what differences there are simply tend to be very small. The biggest real difference would likely be the nature of the aperture blades and how they render background bright spots (even then most of the time this is a null issue - and often comes down more to taste than to a perfect "better or worse" situation).

Features - eg AF speed, IS, OS, focusing modes, internal focusing, teleconverter compatibility etc.... as well as focal length, working distance and price are going to be more major points for consideration. Generally speaking Canon retains an edge on AF speed, though even then macro lenses tend to be a bit slower than regular ones in the AF department. Further the OS in the canon lens is a bit more tuned than some others for macro work, though I've yet to see anyone who's really compared the OS to the IS in the 100mm lenses.
The biggest potential difference to my mind might be that newer canon DSLRs do have a new "macro" AF mode which is auto enabled when any canon macro lens is connected to the camera and is used with continuous AF mode and is focused into its macro distances (you don't set anything special on the camera, it just kicks in on its own). This AF mode aims to counter the backward/forward motions that people have when taking handheld macro photos and, from what I've read, it does this decently well - certainly a step up from older AF setups which simply could not really cope at all.

Alright that sounds great, I'll take it into consideration and try that thanks
 
TheBiles said:
The 100L is an awesome all-around lens. It is weather sealed, and it produces great images. I actually just sold mine to pay for some car repairs, but I would recommend it to anyone.

Ok. From what everyone is saying it seems like there are more reviews on it than the Sigma. I wish someone did a side by side comparison. Hmmmm I should message digitalrev
 
I'm not sure if Kai is safe enough do to a sane review :p


That said IS and OS are boons for handheld, but not essential. You can shoot handheld macro without them, though generally you will benefit a lot from the aid of flash to freeze the motions.
 
After talking to several people that have owned the Canon 100 f2.8 and the L version, all have stated that the original is a great lens but does that the L is just a better lens.
I went with the L on these recommendations, and it has been awesome for me.
 
Overread said:
I'm not sure if Kai is safe enough do to a sane review :p

That said IS and OS are boons for handheld, but not essential. You can shoot handheld macro without them, though generally you will benefit a lot from the aid of flash to freeze the motions.

Yea that's true haha

I need IS for macro, so badly
 
Canuk said:
After talking to several people that have owned the Canon 100 f2.8 and the L version, all have stated that the original is a great lens but does that the L is just a better lens.
I went with the L on these recommendations, and it has been awesome for me.

Ok I'll probably go with the Canon L. I'll see if I cam find the sigma and canon locally and test them side by side
 

Most reactions

Back
Top